Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Semen tastes awful and expecting someone to swallow, or getting pissy when they don't, is lame. That's all I'm sayin'.

I think most people in the conversation had it ending up on other parts of the person's body, including bits without tastebuds, to be a perfectly acceptable way for things to go down. It's mostly the kleenex scenario people seem to dislike with vehemence.

No, the sentence you used in quotes would be correct as is. Saying fish would imply that individual organisms were evolving fins over the course of an epoch.

generally this is only the case in scientific texts

in everyday usage it is permissible to use "fish" to refer to both groups and individuals. note that many analogous plurals like "sheep" do not change in form when referring to a group of groups, which is part of the precedent for it.

Semen tastes awful and expecting someone to swallow, or getting pissy when they don't, is lame. That's all I'm sayin'.

of course getting pissy is lame. i'd also agree that 'expecting' it is lame, if you're using it with the connotation that someone is kind of rudely entitled, and they'll be pissy with people who don't meet that.

but i don't think there's anything at all wrong with 'expecting' to find a partner who digs it. if a girl doesn't swallow or tolerate semen in her mouth or whatever is the value approaching 'too gross'... then that is ok! she is still a nice person, and she will make someone very happy someday, i'm sure.

but it is something that i find sexually gratifying enough that i'd probably seek a partner who enjoyed that sort of thing. i 'expect' my partner to swallow sometimes in the sense that i expect myself to pursue a person who possesses that trait.

I would honest-to-goodness say any couple that participates in oral sex should both be swallowing because the male doesn't really have a choice unless you like cold juice running into your starfish. So, if you like good oral sex as a female you should reciprocate, female juices aren't very yummy in an appealing type of way, sexually it's probably fine because well sex.

I mean it's still better than Mountain Dew.

Warning: I am a programmer/sysop. Do not take my word as law in any other fields, it is not professional advice.

i've never found vaginal fluid that tastes as bad- in general- as i expect semen tastes. it's pretty inoffensive. but when she's menstruating, it is pretty foul. probably still not as bad as semen, i'd guess, but definitely a lot closer.

i've never found vaginal fluid that tastes as bad- in general- as i expect semen tastes. it's pretty inoffensive. but when she's menstruating, it is pretty foul. probably still not as bad as semen, i'd guess, but definitely a lot closer.

Well the makeup of semen is more... favorable for ingestion. Cooch-plegm-sauce basically tastes like you're eating a really wet runny nose, because, well, that's basically what it is.

Warning: I am a programmer/sysop. Do not take my word as law in any other fields, it is not professional advice.

haha apparently there is an accusation that after jay-z and beyonce rented out all the rooms on that wing of the floor for her delivery, their bodyguards prevented anyone from even passing through to get to other places- like the neo-natal ward

it seems like there's only the complaint of one of the other patients' families, so far, and no response from the hospital or whatever yet

I would honest-to-goodness say any couple that participates in oral sex should both be swallowing because the male doesn't really have a choice unless you like cold juice running into your starfish. So, if you like good oral sex as a female you should reciprocate, female juices aren't very yummy in an appealing type of way, sexually it's probably fine because well sex.

I mean it's still better than Mountain Dew.

I dunno, I think vagina is generally a perfectly appealing flavor. Flavors? I guess they all taste different. Maybe it's like alcohol and it's just a learned reaction to like it, but I think blowin' dames is its own reward.

In this paper I seek to examine the epistemological consequences of ethical disagreement: how does the possibility of deep, irresolvable disagreement over ethical matters effect our ability to claim ethical knowledge? I will argue that such a possibility would be toxic to our ability to claim knowledge in the realm of ethics; as such, ethical knowledge cannot be preserved against a background where possible disagreement is unlimited. This, in turn, motivates us to look for a conception of ethics on which our basic access to ethical truth is not subject to unlimited disagreement.

The structure of the paper will be as follows: in section 2, I will sketch three broad possible views of the epistemology of ethics: the empirical model, pure coherence, and reductive epistemology. I will then give reasons to think that the empirical model and the pure coherence views cannot be correct. These classifications, as well as the objections there rehearsed, are entirely borrowed from Setiya (ms).

In section 3, I will then turn to reductive epistemology. I will argue that it also cannot be correct. Unlike the previous section, these objections are not borrowed from elsewhere; they are original to this paper, and they will constitute the bulk of this paper. What will emerge is a conception of non-accidental reliability which privileges first-person access: non-accidental reliability is reliability which the subject understands.

With this concept of reliability in hand, in section 4 I will then return to the empirical model. I will then show how the empirical model can be amended such that it satisfies the demand for non-accidental reliability; it will be crucial that in doing so we limit the scope of possible disagreement. We should carry out this amendment, and believe the subsequent theory. My argument here is simply everything that has come before: since the non-amended version, pure coherence, and reductive epistemology all fail, we ought to believe the amended empirical model.

I will then conclude by discussing, extremely briefly, the implications of the amended empirical model for normative ethics.

Normally I would say this is a badly structured introduction. By that I mean don't be so explicit that you're giving an introduction and don't set up a controversy that you are examining, tell us the conclusion you've come to and use the paper to say how you got there. It comes across as a bit muddled and you're telling instead of showing too much. Don't tell us what you're going to tell us, or say "I'm going to examine X and conclude Y" or "this book is about puppies." Say "in the framework of X, Y" or "Puppies". Something vaguely like :(The possibility of deep, irresolvable disagreement over ethical matters is toxic to our ability to claim knowledge in the realm of ethics. Consequently this motivates us to look for a conception of ethics on which our basis access to ethical truth is not subject to unlimited disagreement.) is stronger, clearer and more direct. You can then say something along the line of "Setiya perusasively argues against two of the three broad possible views of the epistemology of ethics: the empirical model and pure coherence. However, reductive epistemology can be salvaged from his objections such that it satisfies..." etc.

It may be that philosophy has a different standard though since the argument is the thing.

i've never found vaginal fluid that tastes as bad- in general- as i expect semen tastes. it's pretty inoffensive. but when she's menstruating, it is pretty foul. probably still not as bad as semen, i'd guess, but definitely a lot closer.

i never found semen that offensive

i've never gagged over manjam

but there have been cooches whose fragrance or fluids were downright horrific

just saying as a guy whose had experience on both sides of that fence

meh

0

surrealitycheckthe search for the means to put an end to thingsan end to speech is what enables the discourse to continue ~ * ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) excelsior * ~Registered Userregular